[scoopdewoop]

Sit down. The right wing is actively zip-tying entire apartment complexes of poor people, even US citizens, while pointing guns in their faces. Thats violence, and exactly what the left has been ringing the alarm for for years.

[A4ET8a8uTh0_v2]

Um. There is a notable difference between state sanctioned violence, for which, state does claim monopoly and semi-random vigilantes. I am concerned that I even have to point this out ( edit ) that the two are not quite the same.

[scoopdewoop]

A gun in your mom's face is a gun in your mom's face. I don't think those kids will find any solace in that being state sanctioned.

[A4ET8a8uTh0_v2]

You may want to elaborate. Note that the emotional tone or non-plausible scenarios are not the way to advance your argument here. Still, I will counter to show some good faith.

My mom would not have placed herself in a position where there is a gun in her face.

[scoopdewoop]

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-border-patrol-raid-sweep... Is this a source you approve of?

I am in good faith, I'm sorry that discussions about reality are impolite and seem crass. These aren't non-plausible, its reality.

I'm guessing your mom doesn't place herself in situations like being in poverty in Chicago. Lucky her

[zaphar]

There are plenty of people in poverty who do not put themselves in a postion to have a government put guns in their face. It is not poverty by and large that causes a government to put guns in their face in America. Poverty may at times be used as a justification for the actual reason that a gun was put in their face but it is not in fact the reason. Neither is it in the general case a good justification either.

[scoopdewoop]

What are you talking about? Literally, what?

Because I just linked a source: As part of the raid, some U.S. citizens were temporarily detained and children pulled from their beds, according to interviews with residents and news reports. Building hallways were still littered with debris two days later.

What was these citizens crime besides living in apartments in Chicago? Flash bangs, guns, zip ties, and being detained until proven innocent. What did they do to put themselves in that position? Was I wrong to say its poverty?

Or do you mean they should have been rural poor? Or white and poor? What was their trespass?

I'm not talking about "by and large", I'm not talking about "may at times". These are real lives of citizens with "inalienable rights"

If you think state sanctioned violence is permissible, tell it to Nuremberg

[ehaliewicz2]

Damn, so you can just choose to not have guns pointed in your face? Regardless of where you live?

Everyone who has had a gun pointed in their face must have been really stupid then.

[A4ET8a8uTh0_v2]

You can. The people in that story could too. All they had to do is not be there. They were there illegally. It took effort and multiple decisions to get them there. So yes friend. It genuinely is a choice.

[worik]

> My mom would not have placed herself in a position where there is a gun in her face.

There you are blaming the victims.

That is not cool

[A4ET8a8uTh0_v2]

Hmm. You actually raise an interesting issue. What is, in your mind, cool?

[worik]

Blame the perpetrators.

[wat10000]

Yeah. State-sanctioned violence is a fuckton scarier.

Do you think state-sanctioned violence can't be described as "political violence" or that it can't be used to murder political opponents? If so, may I introduce you to most of history?

[A4ET8a8uTh0_v2]

I think, and I would like to think it was covered in civics, that state sanctioned violence is one of the few types that society allows for practical reasons. What I personally think the problem in this conversation is oddly simple: severe conflation of various related issues.

You may be well-intentioned, but you are not exactly convincing me to 'your side'.

[wat10000]

Political violence performed by random civilians and political violence performed by the state are not exactly the same thing, but both are very bad, and the latter is much worse. If the argument is that only the left does political violence by random citizens (blatantly false, but even if we grant it) then saying the right is currently doing political violence by the state is a perfectly response even if they are not exactly the same thing.

[A4ET8a8uTh0_v2]

<< If the argument is that only the left does political violence by random citizens

It is not. The argument is: this is not political violence. If it is, then technically every single traffic stop is(edit: and the whole definition falls apart, because if everything is political violence then nothing really is --- as in: it is not a useful marker for anything ). We can go over specifics of this action if you really want, but:

1. This was not ICE ( so default boogeyman is missing ) 2. Information is missing ( so by default we have conflicting narratives floating )

The entire conversation borders on pointless.

[wat10000]

That was the original argument. "it's only the left that does that." Where "that" was "political violence."

I don't understand what you mean by "if it is, then technically every single traffic stop is." What logical process requires us to go from "mass arrests of innocent children is political violence by the state" to "every traffic stop is political violence by the state"?